Amazon.com Top 100 Books of the Millenium

Cyberpunk is the label under which some of of the
younger science fiction writers of the 1980's
have been marketing their wares, and as neologisms
go it represents a fair description of their
product. Cyberpunk sci-fi, in its ideal form, is
compounded of two elements: a re-envisioning of the
consensual future in terms not of space travel and
other feats of mega-engineering but of a plastic
(that is, wholly malleable) mental landscape that
derives from the new possibilities of computer
graphics; and punk style, in clothes, hair, sexuality
and the abuse of controlled substances. Like
punk rock, and like most traditional rocket-and-blaster
science fiction, Cyberpunk caters to the
wish-fulfillment requirements of male teen-agers,
but this is a job that can be done with varying
degrees of panache, and there is currently no more
accomplished caterer than William Gibson. He is
the undisputed champion of Cyberpunk.
-Thomas
M. Disch (NY Times review of Mona Lisa Overdrive)

When I first read this book, over a decade ago now, the basic concepts
were thrilling enough to overcome the fairly weak characterizations and
the annoyingly obscure narrative. But approaching this material today,
when the idea of human/computer interaction has become a reality, even
a commonplace, many of the basic premises seem truly antihuman. Gibson
is no doubt the father of a sub genre of science fiction, but it is hard
to see how this novel or any of its successors will have much staying power;
the message they convey is simply antithetical to human aspirations.

Gibson imagined a future, and this vision has proven remarkably influential,
wherein the "heroes" would be those who could function best within the
realm of computer generated artificial reality. This is a kind of
souped up Revenge of the Nerds; there is an essential element here
of escaping from the real world, a world where these folks are social failures,
and fleeing to a completely personalized false realm where all the hot
chicks dig the technogeeks. In an important way this represents a
retreat from the basic purpose of humankind. Our history is one of
continually bending reality to our will, of perceiving and learning to
handle the laws which govern it, with the likely goal of one day mastering
it and becoming like unto God ourselves. Now there are some interesting
philosophical questions you could raise in a novel like this about whether
God isn't simply a really gifted programmer and our universe simply an
especially deceptive computer program (some of these types of questions
are raised in The Matrix [see Orrin's
review]), but this book is largely devoid of such ponderings.
And, taken on its own terms, the portrayal of a future of heroic drug addled,
body sculpted, computer obsessives just does not have much appeal.
This vision is reminiscent of the Dark Ages with monks cloistering themselves
in dark abbeys to argue over arcane religious doctrine. They may
have mastered the self contained world of theological supposition and physical
isolation which they created, but they withdrew from the real world and
to that extent failed to contribute meaningfully to its continued development.

It occurs to me that we are approaching a time, may even have arrived,
where a similar choice presents itself. Humans interfacing with computers
or with each other via computers can create artificial versions of themselves,
use pseudonyms, adopt different online personalities, etc.. They
can "fight" in simulated games, argue in "chat rooms" and so on.
But at the end of the day, when they shut off their computers, they will
have done nothing to change the world or themselves for the better.

But an alternative paradigm is also available to us. Computers
offer a means for honest interaction between disparate and distant individuals.
The Web can be an enormous repository for human knowledge and a vector
for sharing that knowledge. In some fundamental sense, the cyberpunk
option, though it is often depicted as offering a means of human liberation,
seems in reality to offer an existence of unfreedom, bound by the restrictions
of programming rules, simple laws of physics and human biological realities.
The fact that the punks willingly imprison themselves in this technological
gulag, does not make it any more free. I believe that the power
of the message of The Matrix lies in its canny discernment of this truth.
The folks inside the Matrix, though they perceive themselves as free, are
prisoners of the machines. It is only those folks who can think beyond
the parameters of the program who are truly capable of experiencing liberty.

I do not mean to suggest that The Matrix is particularly profound.
Indeed, it succeeds by adhering to basic themes like freedom vs. security.
It is classic precisely because it is traditional in its message.
And, of course, it, like cyberpunk, presupposes a world of buff babes in
spandex who are irresistibly attracted to computer hacking wimps.
But the fundamental difference between Neuromancer and The Matrix
is that Case, the hero of Gibson's book, is motivated purely by selfish
desires, while the heroes of the movie have already freed themselves from
the delusion of the Matrix but are intent now on freeing the rest of mankind.
This difference is fundamental to the opposing metaphors: on the one hand
is the world of cyberpunk--solitary, self-oriented, artificial, lifeless;
on the other is the world of life beyond the computer program--communal,
participatory, free, vibrant. Mankind has been confronted with such
choices many times in the past and despite several long periods of stagnation
in the backwaters of artifice, man has always ultimately chosen freedom.
I am confident that we will do so again this time.

Comments:

Humans interfacing with computers or with each other via computers can create artificial versions of themselves, use pseudonyms, adopt different online personalities, etc.. They can "fight" in simulated games, argue in "chat rooms" and so on. But at the end of the day, when they shut off their computers, they will have done nothing to change the world or themselves for the better.

It seems to me that most people don't do anything to change the world or themselves for the better off-line, either.

At the very least, those people fighting, gaming, and arguing on-line are interacting with others, even if only indirectly. Television-watching, which time spent 'net-surfing replaces at an almost 1:1 ratio, is a solitary pursuit, for the most part.

Therefore, strangely enough, spending six hours gaming on-line with Worlds of Warcraft or the like is less anti-human than the activities that it mostly replaces, even though a game of softball or even soccer would be better.

The Web can be an enormous repository for human knowledge and a vector for sharing that knowledge.

That has been my experience, and it's why I spend most of my free time on-line. I did the chatroom thing for eighteen months, and although I had fun, that was a lifetime's worth of "chat" for me. If I hadn't discovered blogs, I'd rarely be on-line now; only when I needed or wanted some instant backround for something seen or read off-line. (All hail the mighty search engines, Lords of the 'Net !!)

Seriously, for me search engines are the killer app of the 'net, even more so than e-mail.

My mother told me, back in '96, that everyone should have a computer and an ISP. I was unconvinced; I wasn't connected, and purchased a computer solely to play games with. However, in '02 I saw that she was right, and had been for some time.

This difference is fundamental to the opposing metaphors: on the one hand is the world of cyberpunk--solitary, self-oriented, artificial, lifeless; on the other is the world of life beyond the computer program--communal, participatory, free, vibrant. Mankind has been confronted with such choices many times in the past and despite several long periods of stagnation in the backwaters of artifice, man has always ultimately chosen freedom. I am confident that we will do so again this time.

Humankind will, but most individual humans won't, as we've discussed a few times on the blog.

The allure of the holo-deck is powerful, for precisely the reasons that you've outlined as the attraction of cyberpunk - everyone can be powerful and attractive in their own fantasies. "Virtual reality" or the "holo-deck" will flesh out the fantasies in vivid colors and engaging action.

The average American spends 20 hours a week watching television; I expect the average future person to spend at least 40 hours a week immersed in a Matrix of their own choosing, and possibly of their own design. (And The Matrix itself is a good fantasy to act out - the intrepid and outnumbered good guys, using pluck and wiles to strike a blow against The Man™, and then slipping away to fight another day... Very Robin Hood & Merry Men-ish).